April 23, 2014

"Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn't 'switched sides in the War on Terror' and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report..."

Reports the British paper The Daily Mail.

Be careful with that... The Daily Mail is part of the chain of commerce conspiracy, identified in the Clinton White House "Conspiracy Commerce" Memo of 1995 (PDF).

37 comments:

traditionalguy said...

After two years no believable reports have yet come out of the Obama Gang explaining why our Ambassador was assassinated. But a total cover up has been implemented.

So conspiracy theory is all we have to go on.

David said...

See. This proves it.

Ron said...

You mean...it's online.

machine said...

yes, we switched sides....and there is no birth certificate.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, thanks for reminding us that there's a vast right-wing conspiracy out there.

Or maybe, like everything else associaed with the Clintons, it's only half-vast.

tim in vermont said...

I have always assumed that there are two reasons they are covering this up so fiercely. Iran Contra style weapons dealing with the Syrian rebels and WTF was Obama doing during the hours this was going on? Where was he?

How long does it take to read "My Pet Goat"?

Illuninati said...

When the government appears to hide information, conspiracy theories flourish. Because Benghazi is covered in lies conspiracy theories are inevitable. Just what is the government hiding anyway? It must be very bad indeed to inspire so many people to try to hide the truth.

Michael said...

The British papers are the best place to go for U.S. news. I highly recommend glancing through the Guardian (lefty), Telegraph (righty), Times (you have to pay). They actually have a lively and somewhat free press there. Odd how competition works.

Big Mike said...

I read the article. I hold no brief for the Obama Administration but there's nothing persuasive in anything written. As Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Never attribute to malevolence what is merely due to incompetence."

Kevin said...


Wow. Richard Milhouse Clinton.

Sounds about right.

Just add a touch of sexual infidelity, perjury and sexual harassment of an intern, and there you go.

Mark said...

Susan Rice will be touring the talk shows this Sunday explaining how the Daily Mail was in fact responsible for the Benghazi attack.

Revenant said...

I agree with Big Mike. The article didn't impress, and neither did the self-selected panel of "experts".

garage mahal said...

Citizens Committee on Benghazi? That sounds so fucking compelling!

Johanna Lapp said...

Robert A. Heinlein, not Arthur C. Clarke

Left Bank of the Charles said...

How much of the "$500 Million of weapons" was actually used that night in Benghazi? $10,000 or at the outside maybe $100,000?

Unknown said...

Neither Heinlein nor Clarke, but rather Hanlan. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

David said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
How much of the "$500 Million of weapons" was actually used that night in Benghazi? $10,000 or at the outside maybe $100,000?


Brilliant point. Got any ideas on how the rest might be used?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Garage, you weren't one of those people squawking about the Right's epistemic closure a while ago, were you?

Big Mike said...

@Johanna, my source said Clarke, but it could be wrong. Heinlein wrote "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" which is pretty much the same idea.

Big Mike said...

@Revenant, thank you sir.

Marshal said...

The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group

AIM was the group claiming Bill and Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. I'm surprised they were able to find enough former government employees of sufficient rank to generate publicity willing to work with them.

Paul said...

Tell you the truth, it would have been prevented if we had not DESTABILIZED LIBYA BY KILLING GADDAFI!!!

That was the most stupid thing to do, and then Obama LEFT A POWER VACUUM where only bad guys resided.

Hence, destabilization brought about far more terrorism than was there to begin with.

All cause Obama needed a 'Monica Moment'.

Curious George said...

"Big Mike said...
I read the article. I hold no brief for the Obama Administration but there's nothing persuasive in anything written. As Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Never attribute to malevolence what is merely due to incompetence."

That would eba good point if Obama and the gang hadn't lied about it for weeks. And we do know they lied.

Katielee4211 said...

Because I'm going to take anything the Clintons say as truth. They tend to be conspiracy theorists. Especially when it comes to vast right wing conspiracy's.

garage mahal said...

And we do know they lied.

And we know that really bothers you. Sometimes.

RecChief said...

The point is, we still don't know why the ambassador was there.

Maybe that is part of the White House's strategy: let the conspiracy theories percolate, and even when some of the truth leaks out (as it eventually will) they can claim that it's just another conspiracy theory.

James Pawlak said...

Such aid to the enemies of the USA, who are waging perpetual war against all civilized people is defined in Article-III, Section-3 of the Constitution---As TREASON.

Drago said...

garage: "And we know that really bothers you. Sometimes."

The defender of "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." is very upset that not everyone gets upset about politicians lying.

LOL

You can't make this stuff up.

Big Mike said...

@Curious George, there are three reasons to lie:

1) You deliberately caused the situation without realizing the blow-back.

2) You caused the situation through your own foolishness and/or incompetence.

3) You have no clue as to what caused the situation.

I have always regarded (2) and (3) as more likely, especially since they are self-reinforcing, than (1) by itself.

Big Mike said...

@Unknown, thank you for the pointer. The precise wording that I used is due to Clarke in his book 3001: The Final Odyssey. Here's a reference, though not the one I originally found.

Lots of people have the same idea.

Big Mike said...

@garage, what bothers me most is the evident inability of Obama and the Clintons to learn from their mistakes. This is particularly true with respect to foreign policy.

Iapetus said...

"Maybe that is part of the White House's strategy: let the conspiracy theories percolate, and even when some of the truth leaks out (as it eventually will) they can claim that it's just another conspiracy theory."

That devilish strategy worked well for Obama in the controversy over his birth certificate so why not use it against the "Benghazi Truthers" as well? Thus far his strategy does seem to be holding traction, don't you think?

Zeb Quinn said...

What difference does it now make?

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
And we do know they lied.

And we know that really bothers you. Sometimes.


More to the point, garage, we know it never bothers you. Anytime.

damikesc said...

Don't worry. Discussing qualifications will be sexist by 2016. As is noting that the candidate is old.

Thankfully, it wasn't offensive to note that McCain (one year older in 2008 than Hillary will be in 2016) was hella old or Obama might've had problems.

Andy Freeman said...

> "Never attribute to malevolence what is merely due to incompetence."

No matter who said it, it's a dumb response to politicians who screw up. Attributing their screwups to incompetence excuses them. Since they don't learn, "excuses" guarantees that they will cause more and bigger problems down the road.

Always assume that politicians intend the likely outcome of their proposals, no matter how bad those outcomes are. In other words, always attribute to malice/malevolence.

Let them make the argument for incompetence if they think that they've been treated unfairly.

Note that malice/malevolence is usually the actual cause. For example, "you can keep your doctor" didn't turn out to be false despite Obama's intentions; he never cared whether it was true and said it only to get Obamacare passed.



Revenant said...

Attributing their screwups to incompetence excuses them.

That's a bold claim, and I noticed you neglected to provide any supporting rationale for it. Please explain why you think accusing a person of incompetence somehow "excuses" what they've done.

Normally, of course, when a person is publicly accused of incompetence, the idea that they ought to be removed and replaced goes without saying.